1

- First draft. Do not quote without permission -

The rise of liquid migration?

Old and new patterns of migration after

EU Enlargement

Godfried Engbersen (Engbersen@fsw.eur.nl)

(Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska

(Centre of Migration Research, University of Warsaw

Arjen Leerkes

(Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Paper to be presented at the Interdisciplinary Conference on

Migration, Economic Change, Social Challenge. April 6th-9th, 2011

University College London

2

1 Introduction1

The free movement of labour is one of the most tangible benefits of European integration.

The EU enlargements of 2004 and 2007 has brought this coveted freedom to the peoples of

Central and Eastern Europe (hereafter: CEE), by the successive lifting of restrictions to the

majority of labour markets from the old EU member states. Hundreds of thousand of

migrants from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria went to Western European countries as a

consequence (Black et al. 2010). These migration flows were partly a continuation of

migration paths that had already been established before 2004 (Garapich 2008). After the

collapse of communism, several Western European countries concluded bilateral treaties

with countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania to enable temporary labour migration.

Germany already concluded such a treaty with Poland in 1991, resulting in a quarter of a

million Polish workers going to Germany for seasonal work in 2002. The UK concluded

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Schemes (SAWS) with various CEE countries, so that tens of

thousands of workers from Poland and other CEE countries could work temporarily in the

UK (Castles 2006). The Netherlands also concluded such agreements. Moreover,

considerable flows of irregular migration from Romania to Italy and Spain had already taken

root by the eve of 2004 (Sandu 2006, Bleahu 2007).

Yet, the new migrations from CEE countries concern also substantial new migrant

groups that do not follow in the footsteps of earlier labour migrants. A striking development

is the large number of Poles that have gone to work in the UK, so that Germany is no longer

the dominant destination country. In addition, the United States has dropped from second

to fifth place (Iglicka and Ziolek-Skrzypczak 2010) in terms of Poles’ destination choices.

Ireland, Norway and Sweden, that similarly to the UK opened their labour market on May

2004 to A8 nationals, became popular destination countries. In the years following the

enlargements, more European countries opened their labour markets to nationals from the

new European member states and thus large groups of CEE labour migrants moved to these

countries. The Netherlands is one such country (Iglicka and Ziolek-Skrzypczak 2010). In

1998, around 5000 work permits were issued in the Netherlands to labour migrants from

1 We thank Maria Ilies and Robbert van der Meij for their statistical support and for their comments on a pervious version of this paper.

3

CEE countries. Some ten years later, by a conservative estimate, 165,000 labour migrants

from CEE states work regularly in the Netherlands. The vast majority of migrants hail from

Poland, though there are also growing numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians (De Boom et

al. 2010). However, the access of Romanians and Bulgarians to the labour markets of the old

EU member states is restricted, as still require a work permit in order to work legally.

Defining contemporary migration patterns from Central and Eastern Europe to

Western Europe is a challenging question. Is it primarily a matter of temporary, circular

labour migration, including mainly seasonal work? It is a matter of settlement migration? Or

are there new migration patterns emerging as well? In earlier publications we introduced the

concept of liquid migration (Engbersen et al., 2010; cf. also Okolski & Lusinska-Grabowska

2009; Engbersen & Snel, forthcoming). This concept, inspired by the work of Bauman

(1999, 2003 and 20065), refers to the emergence of individualised migration patterns in

which migrants try their luck in new and multiple countries of destination, benefiting from

open borders and open labour markets. Liquid migration is also made possible by the

individualisation of family relations in Central and Eastern Europe, so that migration

patterns become less network-driven, with young migrants having fewer family

responsibilities in the country of origin (Engbersen and Grabowska-Lusinska 2010).

Since post-accession migration from Central and Eastern Europe to Western Europe

is a relatively recent phenomenon, it is difficult to formulate any definitive statements about

the nature of contemporary migration flows. It is nevertheless our firm belief that, after

more than 6 years since the accession of the A8 and more than 3 years since the accession of

the A2 to the EU, patterns of migration and settlement that allow for a tentative answer to

the question concerning contemporary migration patterns from CEE countries, are

emerging. To this end, in this paper we will be drawing on the initial findings of a Dutch

study into the position of CEE migrants in Dutch society. We will additionally use several

qualitative studies that have tried to typify contemporary labour migrant and migration flows

from Poland to Western Europe.

The central interest of this paper is how to classify and typify current migration

patterns. To what extent and in what ways do they differ from traditional patterns? Are they

unique in any sense? In the first part of the paper, we will build up our theoretical

framework by discussing contemporary typologies of labour migrants from Poland to West

European countries (mainly to England). From this discussion we construct a typology that

4

is build on two dimensions: the degree of attachment to the home country and the degree of

attachment to the destination country. On the basis of these two dimensions we construct a

conceptual scheme in which four ideal typical patterns of migration are distinguished. The

second part of this paper presents the empirical findings of a Dutch study conducted in

several cities (including Rotterdam and The Hague). In this part we analyse whether the two

dimensions and the different patterns of migration are present in the Dutch data. We also

analyse which type of labour migrants (in terms of age, ethnicity, gender, education,

occupation, family composition) are related to the different patterns of migration. The final

part will discuss whether we are witnessing new patterns of migration today, or whether

these are just forms of older, well-known patterns of migration, but wrapped up in new

economic, social and political conditions and circumstances.

2 Theoretical framework

A serious impediment to obtaining insight into contemporary migration from CEE countries

is the fact that many migrants do not appear in the population statistics of West European

countries. Many labour migrants do not register with the local authorities (Bauere et al.,

2007; De Boom et al., 2010), and they are often underrepresented in national labour force

surveys.2 This is the case, for instance, in the Netherlands and the UK (Salt and Miller 2006;

Bauere et al., 2007; De Boom et al 2010).3 A recent study on the incorporation of

contemporary CEE labour migrants in the Netherlands showed that 39% of the 746

2 Non-registration has various reasons. First there is the temporary nature of labour migration, particularly seasonal work, meaning that migrants are not required to register. A second factor is that official registration is not relevant for many labour migrants staying longer than 6 months. They have found private accommodation through their employer or through own efforts. Self-employed workers also often fail to register. Additionally, there is a group that does reside legally in Western Europe, but that work illegally because they lack a work permit (this applies to many Romanians and Bulgarians). 3 The number of CEE migrants officially residing in the Netherlands was 65,000 in 2009 (based on the criterion of nationality). However, a large Group of CEE migrants is not registered in the official population statistics. Figures from the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) show that, in December 2008, there were 87,000 employees from CEE countries working in the Netherlands who were not listed in the Municipal Personal Records Database (GBA). In addition, there were around 7000 employees of Polish-German nationality and approximately 7700 entrepreneurs from one of the CEE countries in the Netherlands who were not registered in the GBA. Accordingly, the number of CEE migrants in the Netherlands at the end of 2008 who were not listed in the GBA and there fore not included in the official population statistics of Statistics Netherlands is estimated at more than 100,000 (De Boom et al. 2010).

5

respondents were not officially registered and that almost 25% did not know whether they

were registered or not (Weltevrede et al. 2009). To gain further insight into the nature of

contemporary migration patterns, it is important to draw on other sources than the national

population statistics or labour force surveys because they overemphasise the documented

reality and have little to say about the undocumented reality of CEE labour migration

(Grabowska-Lusinska, forthcoming). Furthermore, they give little information about the

migration motives and strategies of labour migrants.

An important source may be found in small-scale, qualitative studies, or ethno-

surveys (sometimes combined with findings from population statistics or labour force

surveys). These studies are often based on a limited number of interviews, and are

characterised by typology construction. Developing typologies alongside data analysis is an

effective means of sparking the theoretical imagination during the research process. A

discussion of current typologies can clarify our thinking on post-accession migration, and

can advocate possible lines of inquiry and theoretical developments (Layder 1998). The

typologies that we shall briefly describe below are complementary and overlap each other.

What they share is an attempt to map out today's diversity in migration patterns. They are a

first essential step toward developing a new theory on migration patterns.

A first relevant study is that by Düvell and Vogel (2006), in which they distinguish four types

of migrants, on the basis of 15 intensive face-to-face interviews with Polish labour migrants.

This typology is based on two underlying dimensions: ‘intended duration of stay’ and ‘family

ties’. They distinguish:

1 Migrants oriented on returning, who remain just briefly in the receiving countries and

retain a strong focus on their own country.

2 Emigrants/immigrants that (wish to) settle in the host country permanently or long-term

for various reasons (work, marriage or lifestyle), and that maintain strong links with the

host society. This migration motive may surface only over the course of time.

3 Trans-national migrants with a strong bi-national orientation. These migrants are

oriented on the country of origin as well as on the host society. This includes migrants

that have worked for long periods in other countries in order to support family at home

(including own children).

6

4 Global nomads that live and work in diverse countries and that have a very international,

cosmopolitan orientation. These migrants are highly mobile, moving from one country

to another; depending on the available work opportunities (cf. Bauman 1998).

A second typology is offered by Eade, Drinkwater and Garapich (2006). This typology is

mainly based on qualitative interviews with 50 Polish labour migrants selected through

snowball sampling. The principal dimensions of their typology are ‘perceived life chances

and plans’ and ‘migration strategies’. They also distinguish four types:

1 Storks are circular migrants who mostly work in low-wage occupations (catering,

construction industry, domestic service, agriculture). Many of them are seasonal

migrants.

2. Hamsters are migrants who view their move as a one-off venture to accumulate enough

capital to invest in Poland.

3. Searchers are migrants who deliberately wish to keep their options open. This group

consists predominantly of young, individualistic and ambitious migrants (intentional

unpredictability).

4. Stayers are migrants who have been living in the host sociey for some time and intend to

remain there for good.

A third typology is that by Grabowska-Lusinska & Okolski (2009). This typology is based on

the migration strategies of distinct groups of labour migrants. Here, ‘migration strategy’ is

defined as a life orientation aimed at reaching certain goals. The empirical bases of this

typology consist of several data sources: an ethno-survey in five local communities in

Poland, the Polish Labour Force Survey, and a secondary analysis of small research projects

throughout Europe. This typology, which builds further on the work by Duvell and Vogel

(2006) and Eade et al. (2006), differentiates four types of migration strategies:

1. Seasonal circulation. This strategy applies to seasonal migrants working in agriculture,

catering, gastronomy and construction.

7

2. Settling down. This strategy concerns migrants that settle permanently in the destination

country (emigrants). In most cases this involves medium-skilled and skilled workers

working in various sectors such as ICT, pharmaceutics, biotechnology, financial services.

3 Long-term residence. This strategy is characteristic for trans-national labour migrants

that remain for long periods in a destination country, but that retain strong links to the

home country (partly due to the presence of family there). Here too, it mainly concerns

medium-skilled and skilled workers active in various sectors such as ICT, pharmaceutics,

biotechnology and the financial sector.

4 Unpredictable intentions. This strategy applies to young singles or young couples, often

well educated, that temporarily reside in another country while retaining all options of

remaining, returning or moving to another country. This group has few family

obligations in the home country, and concerns skilled and highly skilled migrants active

in a wide range of sectors.

A fourth typology has been defined by Trevena (forthcoming). Based on 28 face-to-face in-

depth interviews with Polish labour migrants in the UK, this typology is distinct from the

others in that it exclusively pertains to highly skilled graduates. This typology shows that

within a single category, large differences exist. These differences not only concern age and

life stage, but also migration motives. Trevena distinguishes three types of migrants. Her

typology is based on the migration motives of highly skilled labour migrants.

1 Target earners: aiming to accumulate large sums of money for the purpose of investing it

in the home country.

2 Career seekers: seeking to develop their career abroad.

3 Drifters (majority of respondents): pursuing other goals than professional advancement

or savings for investment; typical for the initial stages of migration. Their initial aim was

to ‘go somewhere else’ and ‘have a look around’, and not to work on developing a career;

opting for low-skilled jobs (e.g. cleaning or bartending) therefore came as a natural

choice.

The four typologies described are an attempt to come to grips with the new reality of

migration as it has developed since the collapse of communism in 1989 and especially since

8

the expansion of the EU in 2004 and 2007. These changes in migration patterns are not only

of a quantitative nature, but also of a qualitative one (compare also Favell 2008). On the one

hand, the classic patterns of seasonal migration and settlement migration are discernible. On

the other hand new fragmented patterns of transnational and ‘footloose’ migration seem to

emerge (cf. Snel et al. 2006; Van Bochove et al 2010). These latter patterns of migration

relate to migrants who are rooted in the home country as well as in the destination country,

and to migrants who act rather independently because they are less bounded by family

obligations or other commitments in the home country and destination country. Young and

highly skilled migrants with a migratory habitus of ‘intentional unpredictability’ are

overrepresented within these migration patterns.

It is interesting to note that that there is a clear family resemblance between these

contemporary typologies and some classical typologies based on fieldwork done in

developing countries (Chapman & Prothero 1983-1984) and Mexico-US (Massey et al. 1996).

These earlier typologies also showed a plurality of migration patterns from very temporary

migration to permanent settlement. There are also substantial differences between these

classical typologies and the new ones. Some contemporary patterns of migration are more

individualised and less network-driven than the forms of mobility described in earlier work

on forms of mobility in Africa and Asia or in Massey’s work on migration patterns between

Mexico and the US. It is also obvious that the disappearance of borders in the enlarged EU

and the free mobility of labour have facilitated a diversity of migration patterns. In contrast,

the border control between the US and Mexico (especially after IRCA)4 has seriously limited

the opportunities of labour migrants to travel back and forth without constraints between

these two countries. In this respect the contemporary European typologies of migration

have more in common with the typology of Chapman & Prothero (1983-84) who have

written primarily on reciprocal flows of people within Asian and African countries. The

distinction they made between ‘migration’ (durable or permanent change of residence) and

forms of ‘mobility’ (from commuting on a daily basis to circular migration for longer periods

of time) is still useful for classifying East-West migration. The EU Enlargement has

4 In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act placed renewed emphasis on controlling the Mexico- US border.

9

significantly facilitated mobility patterns of commuting and circular migration across national

borders.

The different typologies of migration patterns after EU enlargement not only illustrate the

consequences of changes in institutional contexts, they also show in our understanding that

two basic dimensions are constructive for the different typologies. The first dimension is the

degree to which migrants are attached to the destination country. This attachment can be

either weak or strong, and it relates to administrative and financial registration as well as to

socio-cultural and demographic factors, such as a command of the national language,

contacts with the native population, and cohabiting with a partner and children (or not) in

the destination country.

The second dimension is the degree to which migrants remain attached to their

home country. As with the first dimension, the nature of this attachment ranges from weak

to strong, and it relates to socio-economic, socio-cultural and demographic factors.

Indicators for the strength or weakness of migrants’ attachments to the home country are:

economic investment plans, family ties and obligations, and a partner and children who still

reside in the home country. By combining the two dimensions, of an attachment to the

destination country (weak-strong) and an attachment to the home country (weak-strong),

four combinations result. These four combinations are ideal types. Nevertheless, the

continuity of the two dimensions enables a range of intermediate forms. The figure below is

an attempt to place the typologies described above in four quadrants (see Figure 1).

10

Figure 1: Different patterns of labour migration and different types of Polish labour migrants after EU Enlargement

Strong Attachment to the home country

Weak

WWeak Strong

Attachment to the destination country

Figure 1 has mainly a descriptive value; we should guard against a static and deterministic

interpretation. We do not assume any one-sided causal relationship between specific

attachments and specific migration patterns. Attachments to the destination and home

country and migrants' aspirations and orientation are interdependent. It is also important to

recognise how migrants' attachments and aspirations may change over the course of time.

Figure 1 should therefore be viewed in a dynamic perspective as well. Migrants may move

from one quadrant to another over the course of time.

Aside from the issue of the underlying dimensions, however, there is also the issue of

the determinants of the different patterns of migration. Which migrants of what

characteristics wind up predominantly in which quadrant? It seems obvious to assume that

low skilled migrants mainly end up in quadrant A and the better educated migrants in

quadrants B and D. They manage to attain a stable position in the destination country,

thanks to their human capital. This generally concerns relatively successful labour migrants.

Quadrant C seems particularly applicable to the highly skilled whose specific competences

Temporary, circular & seasonal migration: ‘storks’ & ‘hamsters’ target earners A

Transnational migration (bi-national orientation): transmigrants, long-term residence migrants B

Footloose migration global nomads, searchers & drifters C

Settlement migration settlement migrants, stayers D

11

allow them to choose their work place, and to young migrants that can and want to keep

their options open.

In the remainder of this paper we shall investigate to what extent the typology above

can be substantiated. We will draw on Dutch data gathered from the perspective of a

destination country. These data enable us to investigate to what extent the migration patterns

resurface in larger-scale quantitative research.

3 The Dutch study: preliminary analysis and results (to be concluded)

The Dutch study investigates the incorporation of migrants from Poland, Bulgaria and

Romenia in the Netherlands. The study has been conducted in nine Dutch municipalities.

We have covered major cities such as Rotterdam (600,000 inhabitants) and The Hague

(500,000 inhabitants), medium-sized ones, namely Breda (175,000 inhabitants),

Dordrecht (120,000 inhabitants) and Westland (100,000 inhabitants), as well as small

agrarian communities, namely Hillegom (20,000 inhabitants), Katwijk (60,000

inhabitants), Moerdijk (37,000 inhabitants) and Zundert (21,000 inhabitants). A total of

600 CEE migrants have been interviewed we the help of a questionnaire comprising 213

questions. Out of these, 363 interviews have been held in Rotterdam, The Hague, Breda,

Moerdijk and Zundert. We have used structured face-to-face interviews with a few open

questions which elaborate on the issues of (notably) housing, work integration in the

Dutch society, future plans. The interviews have taken place in the mother tongue of the

respondents, for the duration of between one and two hours. We have used interviewers

with the same mother tongue as that of the respondents - international students or

graduates from the Erasmus University Rotterdam. They selected their respondents

through snowball sampling. At the end of each interview, the respondents were asked

whether they knew of any fellow nationals who could be interviewed. We also

emphasised on the diversification of sources from where the respondents are selected.

The places frequented by CEE labour migrants are well known to our interviewers;

however, we were careful not to overuse certain locations. For instance, the interviewees

have been selected from Polish and Bulgarian shops, internet forums supermarkets in

12

neighbourhoods home to many Polish or Bulgarian nationals. Respondents were

approached on the street by the interviewers upon hearing their mother tongue or by

identifying their national car plates. A few respondents were found through the schools

attended by their children.

As Table 1 shows, we are dealing with a heterogeneous group that includes both

highly educated and low educated respondents. The size of the Bulgarian group is

proportionally large because we have devoted extra attention to this category for two

reasons. Firstly, to investigate whether the concerns over unemployed Bulgarians relying

on shelters for the homeless as well as over those working illegally, are justified.

Secondly, to analyze the impact on the position of Bulgarians on the Dutch labour

market, given the fact that together with Romanian nationals, this group still requires

work permits in order to work in the Netherlands. (see Snel et al 2010).5

5 A closer analysis reveals that the Bulgarian respondents are to an important extent native to three regions in Bulgaria, namely the capital city Sofia and two regions in the east of the country (Schumen and Varna). Schumen is a city of around 100,000 inhabitants in Bulgaria's interior. Varna, with 315,000 inhabitants the country's third city, is on the Black Sea coast. It is significant that the latter two regions are both Turkish speaking. Many Bulgarian labour migrants in the Netherlands therefore speak Turkish, giving them easy access to the Turkish community in the Netherlands (also compare Leerkes et al. 2007).

13

Table 1. Respondents according to home country, age, personal status, education and

occupation

Home country N =363 % Poland 38.6 Romania 19.8 Bulgaria 41.6 Age N=363 <30 50.4 31-40 31.3 41-50 13.9 50 + 4.4 Personal status N=319 Married 35.0 With partner, not married 26.4 Single 27.8 Divorced 8.5 Widow/widower 1.4 Other 0.8 Education N=360 None 0.3 Primary education 2.5 Secondary education 13.0 High school 55.0 Still studying 25.1 Other 2.5 Widow/widower 1.7 Other

Occupation N=337 Highly skilled 13.3 Semi skilled workers 28.5 Low skilled 37.7 Agricultural workers 20,5

14

In the theoretical framework we brought together the results of various qualitative studies in

Figure 1, on the assumption that there are two dimensions that underlie the different types

of migrants: attachment to the destination country and attachment to the home country.

Steps in the data analysis

First step. Attachment to the Netherlands and to the home country was measured using factor analyses.

We measured the degree of attachment to the destination country using the following

variables: registration in the municipal personal records database (GBA), having a Dutch

bank account number, having Dutch friends, command of the Dutch language, and contacts

with Dutch people in leisure time and in the neighbourhood. As table 2 shows, this involves

a factor with high factor loadings as well as high reliability.

Table 2: Factor loadings of the factor attachment to the Netherlands

1 2

Registered in the municipal personal records database (GBA)

0,52 0,71

Dutch bank account 0,62 0,61

Speaks Dutch 0,76 0,10

Contact with native Dutch 0,81 -0,31

Contact native Dutch in neighborhood 0,65 -0,16

Contact with native Dutch outside of work 0,78 -0,30

Has Dutch friends 0,83 -0,29 Eigenvalue first factor: 3.6; Eigenvalue second factor 1.2;

The attachment to the home country was measured using the following variables:

frequency of visits to the home country each year, duration of stays in the home country

each year, return movements to visit family, remittances sent by home by a migrant, and

the share of money the remittances add up to on an annual basis.

15

Table 3: Factor loadings of the factor attachment to home country

1 2

# visits to home country per year (logged) 0,45 0,76

# weeks in home country per year 0,56 0,65

Supports family 0,84 -0,38

Money remitted per year (logged) 0,86 -0,35

Own or rents housing in home country 0,38 -0,21 Eigenvalue first factor: 2.16; Eigenvalue second factor 1.3 Second step. Missing values for the factors were imputed by regressing the factor on the indicators from which the factors are derived. Third step. Only the first (i.e. most important) factors were used in all subsequent analyses. One factor for attachment to the Netherlands; one factor for attachment to home country Fourth step. Using K-means clustering, four clusters were distinguished that correspond to the four cells in Figure 1. Table 4 Cluster centers for settlement migrants, footloose migrants, temporary workers and bi-nationals (N=363)

Settlement migrants (24%)

Footloose migrants (32%)

Temporary workers (23%)

Bi-nationals (21%)

Attachment NL 1,05 -0,58 -0,91 0,43 Attachment home country

-0,82 -1,01 0,64 1,00

16

Result: attachment to home country and NL vary more or less independent of each other. In our sample, the four types seem to occur with more or less the same frequency.6

6 In this figure we typified our respondents as stayers (settlement migrants), drifters (footloose migrants),

storks (temporary migrants) and as bi-nationals.

17

Fifth step. Using four logistic regression analyses to predict cluster membership

B p B p B p B p

Sex (male=1) 0,55 0,04 0,32 0,27 0,02 0,94 -1,08 0,00

Migration age -0,02 0,12 0,01 0,42 0,06 0,00 -0,07 0,00

Length of stay in NL (months)

-0,04 0,00 0,00 0,87 0,02 0,00 0,01 0,13

Highly skilled -1,68 0,02 -1,76 0,10 0,03 0,96 1,55 0,00

Semi skilled -0,67 0,05 -0,21 0,55 0,73 0,03 0,22 0,57

Low skilled 0,06 0,83 -0,09 0,79 0,30 0,37 -0,11 0,76

Farm workers (ref) 0 0 0 0

Education high 0,12 0,77 -1,41 0,00 -0,14 0,78 1,90 0,00

Education middle -0,01 0,99 -0,94 0,01 0,38 0,38 1,01 0,05

Education low (ref) 0 0 0 0

Poland -0,76 0,01 0,91 0,01 1,05 0,00 -1,24 0,00

Romania -0,79 0,05 0,64 0,18 0,88 0,03 -0,69 0,08

Bulgaria (ref) 0 0 0 0

Labor migration -0,08 0,80 -0,05 0,89 0,90 0,02 -0,58 0,07

Chain migration -0,14 0,58 -0,07 0,81 0,27 0,32 -0,14 0,63

Student migration -0,43 0,46 -1,24 0,24 0,65 0,18 0,04 0,93

Social provisions migration -0,57 0,10 -0,07 0,84 -0,37 0,27 0,84 0,01

Intends to stay max 1 year 0,31 0,40 0,86 0,02 -0,18 0,67 -2,11 0,00

No clear intended time of stay

0,51 0,12 0,06 0,87 0,25 0,44 -0,69 0,03

Intends to stay 1-5 years -0,03 0,93 0,35 0,36 0,53 0,12 -0,67 0,07 Intends to stay 5+ years (ref)

0 0 0 0

Partner no kids 0,96 0,04 -0,39 0,41 0,03 0,96 -0,86 0,05

Single 0,48 0,21 -0,35 0,34 0,05 0,89 -0,46 0,19

Partner and kids (ref) 0 0 0 0

Constant 0,35 0,67 -1,25 0,15 -5,83 0,00 1,77 0,07

Results

Settlement migrants (‘stayers’) tend to be women who migrated when they were relatively

young, stayers also tend to be highly skilled and work in highly skilled professions, they are

less likely to be Polish, stayers intend to stay in the NL for 5 years or more. Stayers tend to

have families of their own.

18

Footloose migrants (‘searchers’) tend to be male, have not been in NL for a long time, have

migrated when they were relatively young, tend to have a partner but no kids, tend to be

from Bulgaria, tend to work in low-skilled professions but are not necessarily low skilled.

Seem to prefer short stay or do not know yet how long to stay (but intended stay is not

significant)

Temporary migrants tend to be low skilled Poles who intend to stay for less than a year. They

tend to work in agriculture.

Bi-nationals tend have migrated when they were a bit older, they’ve been in the NL for a

while, often work in semi-skilled professions, they tend to be Polish or Romanian rather

than Bulgarian, and they have migrated for work purposes.

The effects of length of stay in the Netherlands are difficult to interpret in a cross sectional

sample, it may indicate that:

1 Over time, migrants tend to become stayers or bi-nationals, i.e footloose migrants

and temporary workers become stayers or binationals (differential integration

process)

2 Migrants who migrated in the past are more likely to have been stayers or bi-

nationals, i.e. new migrants are more likely to be mobile migrants that keep their

options open (historical development due to open borders in EU)

4 Preliminary conclusions

The main aim of this article was to make sense of post accession migration from Central and

Eastern Europe. To this end, we focussed on labour migration from Poland, Bulgaria and

Romania to the Netherlands. In order to classify and understand current patterns of labour

migration, we developed a heuristic conceptual framework inspired by several exploratory

studies on East-West migration after the two Eastern enlargements of the EU. Our

19

conceptual framework has also been inspired by earlier typologies in which circulator and

temporal forms of population movements were dominant. We assumed that the main

dimensions behind these typologies are two-fold: attachment to the destination country and

attachment to the home country. In order to test our conceptual model, we conducted an

empirical study in large, middle sized and small cities in the Netherlands. Our analysis was

based on interviews with 363 respondents.

The first step in our analysis has been to analyse whether the two underlying dimensions

and the four basic patterns of migration were traceable in our data. A factor analysis showed

that we can indeed distinguish two factors that measures attachment to the destination and

to the home country, and that these two factors are independent of each other. A second

finding was the fact that the four patterns of migration are present in our data, and that

different types of CEE migrants are related to these migration patterns. Low skilled migrants

(f.e. seasonal migrants) predominantly end up in quadrant A, and the higher skilled with a

strong bi-national orientation are above average located in quadrant B. This quadrant also

accommodates people who are a bit older, and who work in semi-skilled professions, they

tend to be Polish or Romanian. Highly skilled migrants aiming for a long stay in the

Netherlands relate to quadrant D. They tend to be women who migrated when they were

relatively young. Stayers also tend to work in highly skilled professions. They are less likely to

be Polish. Stayers intend to stay in the Netherlands for 5 years or more and tend to have

families of their own. Footloose migrants (searchers) who can be situated in quadrant C.

tend to be recent migrants who migrated when they were relatively young. They have no

kids, and tend to be from Bulgaria. Many of them are working in low-skilled professions but

are not necessarily low skilled. They seem to prefer short stay or do not know yet how long

to stay (but intended stay is not significant.

We have uncovered in this paper a parallel existence of ‘classical’ and ‘new’ migration

patterns (see Figure 2). The classical migration patterns of temporary migration and

settlement migration that are typical for the quest workers migration and post colonial

migration are represented by a diagonal line from A to D. The new ‘liquid’ migration

patterns are represented by a diagonal line from B tot C. Our results confirm the early

Massey’s et al (1986) findings that forms of mobility are not universal, but connected to

specific institutional migration circumstances (cf. also Sassen 1999). The EU enlargements in

20

combination with (free) access to the national labour markets of Western European societies

have created an internal European labour market that made possible a plurality of East-West

migration patterns (Garapich 2008). Favell (2008) has argued that the EU Enlargements have

encouraged an exploitative dual labour market for Eastern movers in the West. Our study

partly confirms this view, especially for low skilled workers who are facing labour market

restrictions (such as Bulgarian workers). But next to these migrant groups, we have also

witnessed groups of skilled CEE labour migrants who were able to work on the primary

labour market and who were capable of integrating into Dutch society.

Figure 2: Different patterns of labour migration and different types of migrants after EU Enlargement

Strong Attachment to the home country

Weak

WWeak Strong

Attachment to the destination country

Throughout the course of our analysis we became convinced that in order to make the post-

enlargement migration picture complete, we need to dig into two sides of the coin. This

means having the perspective of both the home and the destination country. Although we

know that migrants come from many destination countries throughout the EU, Poland is

one of the most crucial of these. A further step would be to conduct a longitudinal, multi-

Temporary, circular & seasonal migration: ‘storks’ & ‘hamsters’ target earners A

Transnational migration (bi-national orientation): transmigrants, long-term residence migrants B

Footloose migration global nomads, searchers & drifters C

Settlement migration settlement migrants, stayers D

New migration

patterns Classical migration

patterns

21

sided study (in Poland and the Netherlands) in order to systematically study the dynamics of

migration flows and the ways in which attachments to the destination and home country

influence the different patterns of migration.

22

References

Black, Richard, Godfried Engbersen, Marek Okólski & Cristina PanŃîru (eds.) (2010) A

Continent Moving West? EU Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe,

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press

Bleahu, Ana (2007) With calluses on your palms they don’t bother you: Illegal Romanian

migrants in Italy. Focaal. European Journal of Anthropology 49: 101-109

Castles, Stephen (2006) Guest workers in Europe: a resurrection. International Migration

Review, Vol. 40 (4): 741-766

Chapman, Murray and R. Mansell Prothero (1983-1984) Themes on Circulation in the Third

World. International Migration Review, 17(4): 597-632

De Boom, Jan, Afke Weltevrede, Erik Snel, Tim Konrad & Godfried Engbersen (2010)

Dutch SOPEMI Report 2009. Migration and migration policies in the Netherlands 2009.

Rotterdam: Risbo/Erasmus University

Düvell F. and D. Vogel (2006) Polish Migrants: Tensions between Sociological Typologies

and State Categories in: Anna Triandafyllidou (ed), Contemporary Polish Migration in Europe.

Complex Patterns of Movement and Settlement. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 267-289.

Eade J., Drinkwater S., Garapich M. (2006) Class and Ethnicity – Polish Migrants in

London, CRONEM. Guildford: University of Surrey.

Engbersen and Arjen Leerkes (2010) Towards a Smarter and More Just Fortress

Europe. Combining Temporary Labor Migration and Effective Policies of Return. In:

Natasha A. Frost, Joshua D. Freilich & Todd R. Clear (eds.) Contemporary Issues in

Criminal Justice Policy. Belmont: Wadsworth, pp. 211-220

23

Engbersen, Godfried, Marek Okólski, Richard Black & Cristina PanŃîru (2010) Introduction.

Working out a way from East to West: EU enlargement and labour migration from Central

and Eastern Europe. In: Richard Black, Godfried Engbersen, Marek Okólski & Cristina

PanŃîru (eds.) (2010) A Continent Moving West? EU Enlargement and Labour Migration from

Central and Eastern Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 7-22

Engbersen, Godfried, Erik Snel & Jan de Boom (2010) ‘A Van Full of Poles. Liquid

Migration In Eastern and Central European Countries.’ In: Richard Black, Godfried

Engbersen, Marek Okólski & Cristina PanŃîru (eds.) (2010) A Continent Moving West? EU

Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press, pp. 115-140

Engbersen Godfried and Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska (2010) Long-lasting

temporariness of foreign workers in European societies, paper presented at XVII ISA

World Congress of Sociology, 11-17 July 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Engbersen, Godfried and Erik Snel Liquid migration (forthcoming) Dynamic and fluid

patterns of post-accession migration flows. In: Birgit Glorius, Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska

and Aimee Kuvik (eds) Mobility in Transition: Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Pres

Fassman, H. and Münz, R. (1994) European East-West Migration, 1945-1992.

International Migration Review 28 (3): 520-538

Favell, Adrian (2008) The new face of East-West migration in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and

Migration Studies, Vol. 34 (5): 735-752

Garapich, Michal (2008) The migration industry and civil society: Polish immigrants in the

United Kingdom before and after EU Enlargement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,

Vol. 34 (5): 735-752

24

Grabowska, Izabela-Lusinska & Marek Okólski (2009), Emigracja Ostatnia? Warsaw:

Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar

Grabowska, Izabela-Lusinska (forthcoming) Anatomy of post-accession migration:

methodological approach. How to measure ‘liquidity’ and other patterns of post-accession

migration flows? In: Birgit Glorius, Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska and Aimee Kuvik (eds)

Mobility in Transition: Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement. Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Pres

Ivancheva, Mariya (2007) Strawberry fields forever? Bulgarian and Romanian student

workers in the UK. Focaal. European Journal of Anthropology, 49:110-117

Layder D. (1998) Sociological practice. Linking theory and social research, London: Sage

Publications.

Leerkes, Arjen, Godfried Engbersen and Marion van San (2007) Shadow Places. Patterns of

Spatial Concentration and Incorporation in the Netherlands, Urban Studies Vol. 44 (8): 1491-

1516.

Massey, Douglas S., Rafael Alarcon, Jorge Durand, and Hunberto Gonzalez (1987), Return to

Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press

Salt J. and J. Millar (2006) Foreign labour in the United Kingdom: current pattern and trends. Labour

Market Trends, Office for National Statistics, October.

Sandu, D. (ed.) (2006) Living abroad on a temporary basis. The economic migration of Romanians:

1990-2006. Bucharest: Open Society Foundation

Smith, M.P. and A. Favell (eds.) (2006) The human face of global mobility: international high skilled

migrants in Europe. North America and the Asian Pacific. New Bruswick, NJ: Transaction

Press

25

Trevena P. (forthcoming) Why do highly educated migrants go for low-skilled jobs? A case

study of Polish graduates working in London. In: Birgit Glorius, Izabela Grabowska-

Lusinska and Aimee Kuvik (eds) Mobility in Transition: Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Pres

Van Bochove, Marianne, Katja Rusinovic & Godfried Engbersen (2010) The Multiplicity of

Citizenship: Transnational and Local Practices of Middle-Class Migrants. Global

Networks 10(3): 344-364.

Sassen, S. (1999) Guests and Aliens. New York: The New Press

Snel, Erik, Godfried Engbersen and Arjen Leerkes (2006) Transnational Involvement and

Social Integration. In: Global Networks. A Journal of Transnational Affairs, Vol. 6 (2): 285-308

Snel, Erik, Jack Burgers, Godfried Engbersen, Maria Ilies, Robbert van der Meij & Katja

Rusinovic (2010) Arbeidsmigranten uit Bulgarije, Polen en Roemenië in Rotterdam. Sociale leefsituatie,

arbeidspositie en toekomstperspectief. Den Haag: NICIS

Weltevrede, A.M., J. de Boom, S. Rezai, L. Zuijderwijk en G. Engbersen (2009).

Arbeidsmigranten uit Midden- en Oost-Europa. Een profielschets van recente arbeidsmigranten uit de

MOE-landen. Rotterdam: Risbo

Wallace, C. & D. Stola (eds.) (2001) Patterns of Migration in Central Europe. Houndmills and

New York: Palgrave